Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality. But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction. If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction?

Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now.

If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your senses and reason, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational.

if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.

Everyone rationally knows truth from fiction as they perceive reality with their senses. Their senses are validated by the continued reliability of use. For instance, someone would know this apple is red because they can see with their eyes. They know their eyes are reliable because they have served so for as long as the person could see.

Truth/fiction -> truth is differentiated from fiction by senses -> senses are trustable because they have been reliable for all times in the past -> brain knows truth from fiction

By what method other than your senses do you determine your senses' "continued reliability"? If you have no other method than your sense to determine your senses' reliability, then you are guilty of circular reasoning, which means you are providing me an IRRATIONAL way to know truth from ficton, which does not answer the OP.

BTW, which of your senses told you how every other person knows truth from fiction?

Kind sir, we have several senses to determine each other senses' reliability. If you eat the said apple, your tongue would taste the sweetness of it, which is compatible with your eyes' findings. You could touch the apple, feel the apple, hear it thud against the table. It is not just one sense to determine the reliability of itself, our senses work together to give us a vivid image if reality.

Truth/fiction -> truth is differentiated from fiction by senses -> senses are trustable because they have been reliable for all times in the past -> senses are reliable based on findings of multiple other senses' input -> brain knows truth from fiction

To put it in another way, one situation where this method to determine reality from delusion is compromised would be drug addict high on hallucinogens. His senses are not reliable, based on the incompatibility of one sense to the other. He may see a big red mushroom on the ground, but he cannot touch it. He cannot trust his senses. He cannot determine reality from delusion.

Well, this is the only possible answer, but it is patently insufficient, for all of the senses are filtered though the reason which draws conclusions based on its understanding of the senses. So, this just pushes the question back one step. How do you know your reason is valid?

The question you posed has already been answered in Round 2. I have clearly, fully answered the topic. If you want to deem it insufficient just to look like you won, then fine, but I have done my part.

You seem to be quite arrogant- maybe this is why you can't gain an answer...? You can never win in an argument with an idiot- so It is pointless for me to argue this with you, ViceRegent. I would like to leave this discussion now. I hope in the future you gain more open-mindedness, and less arrogance. Maybe then you will be less of a mindless fool yourself. I don't know everything, but I try my best in order to gain an understanding of what I can, as well as attempting to gain some sort of understanding of another's beliefs or thoughts- however, you have managed to make this task nearly impossible. Anyways, I would like to be the better person in the end by saying that it was in fact, a discussion, and fun while it lasted. And I hope you have a nice day, sir.

How funny that this moron is now admitting that her source for "truth" is ever changing, that what she claims to know today may be shown to be utter fiction tomorrow. Yea, everyone knows it is best to build your house upon the sad. Come on, is this the best you mindless fools have?

Funny thing about religion actually- Its views seem to remain constant whereas science changes to accommodate new information. A theory cannot be proven, but disproven. I do not mean to say that truth is limited to time, primarily because what you are talking about may very well not be the truth at all. Also, I had meant to refer to how outdated the morals and societal codes taught in the Bible are. Also, "assuming *there* are any." Yet referring to me as a moron? Nice grammar you've got there, Atheist-hating smartypants.

It's quite funny, actually... ViceRegent seems to have made several of the same debate using the exact same arguments... Still using circular arguments I see? Or just a troll? And why would you imply that Atheists are irrational when your beliefs stem from a book that is several thousand years old? Enlighten us, then, with actual evidence?